Memeorandum

November 28, 2005

Is Andrea Mitchell The Next Bob Woodward?

The lady doth protest too much. Is Andrea Mitchell sitting on a Bob Woodward style revelation about Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame leak? Does her nagging conscience want her to reveal that she had received an early leak of the news that Ms. Plame was at the CIA?

Twice now, Don Imus has asked Andrea Mitchell to explain why she said, back in October 2003, that among reporters probing the story of the Wilson trip to Niger it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

On November 10, Ms. Mitchell was unprepared, and gave an answer that was comically absurd.

And last Wednesday, November 23, Ms. Mitchell delivered a Thanksgiving turkey. Her new explanation for her Oct 2003 statement is elegant in its simplicity - "I screwed it up". Hmm. Maybe Scooter could try that on at his trial.

However, Don Imus also asked her whether she had been contacted by Fitzgerald's investigation. Her current denial - "in no way" - stands in stark opposition to her comments of Oct 29, 2005 when she appeared on The Tim Russert Show" on CNBC. Is she being deeply evasive and deceptive with her current answer? We can provide a motive!

We roll the transcripts in this recent post, but here is the gist: Ms. Mitchell now claims that when she said, back in 2003, that many reporters had become aware that Ms. Plame was at the CIA, she had become confused about the timeline. What she meant to say, she explains, was that she became aware of Ms. Plame's CIA role when the rest of us did - upon the publication of Bob Novak's column.

Our rebuttal is that in the 2003 interview, Ms. Mitchell had addressed confusion about the timeline in the previous question. Did she become confused herself in the space of fifteen seconds?

As to her new evasion, that "in no way" had she been in contact with the Fitzgerald investigation, the kindest guess we can make is that when speaking with Mr. Imus she became confused and "screwed it up" with her latest answer.

Our less kind guess is that she is being Clintonian - perhaps she talked with investigators before Special Counsel Fitzgerald took over the case on December 30, 2003. But why so deceptive?

And our third choice is that she is, gosh, we don't like this word, lying. According to this Newsday excerpt from March 2004, Ms. Mitchell was certainly intriguing to Mr. Fitzgerald when he issued some subpoenas in January 2004 - not only was she a reporter whose White House contacts were of interest, but she almost certainly appeared on the guest list of the White House reception honoring her husband, Alan Greenspan. She should have had lots to talk about with an FBI investigator, who should have arrived at her doorstep at the behest of Special Counsel Fitzgerald. Yet now she is saying that the conversation never occurred.

Why might she now be so coy about the possibility that she once had a chat with investigators, when she was willing to admit just that only a month ago?

One guess - it was October 29 when she told Tim Russert she had talked with the FBI. Two days later, on November 1, James Taranto of the WSJ unearthed the Oct 2003 transcript, thereby raising the stakes - did Ms. Mitchell tell the FBI that she had prior knowledge of Ms. Plame's CIA employment? Did she specifically deny it? Did they even ask?

We sense her awkwardness - I would be astonished if Fitzgerald went after any journalists for false statements, but he might cast some stony looks in the direction of an uncooperative reporter.

But beyond any problem she might have with Fitzgerald, there is a significant news story here. Ms. Mitchell is not bound by any legal rules or source protection if she wants to describe her own experience with the Plame investigation. What did the investigators ask her about? If they completely ignored her Oct 2003 statement, well, that surely calls into question the thoroughness of their work.

Or, if they did ask about it, what did she tell them? Did she name the sources for her information (unlikely), invoke journalistic privilege, or what? And, as with Woodward, folks might like to know how much of this was shared with her editors, and why it was concealed from her viewers. (Hmm, but Woodward has been getting hammered - maybe she would prefer to avoid that by denying everything? Just a wild guess.)

And keep in mind - the Fitzgerald subpoena in January 2004 was for White House contacts with Ms. Mitchell. If she received a leak about Ms. Plame from one of her State Department sources (as Bob Woodward may have done), Fitzgerald's investigative net might have missed it, and she would the same reason Woodward did to keep mum. News is waiting to be broken!

And who is going to break it? The main stream media seems to be deeply reluctant to chase each other's sources on this story - the prevailing ethos seems to be that each outfit handles their own laundry.

Or maybe there is nothing here; Matt Yglesias of TAPPED notes my earlier post and explains that "I think it's always been clear that Mitchell was somewhere on the mistaken/lying continuum with that one."

Really? Let me add two bits of evidence.

First, we have the living example of Bob Woodward, who did receive an early leak and chose to protect his source by keeping keep quiet rather than risking a court fight he would probably lose. Cliff May, who may know whereof he speaks, addresses this. If keeping quiet was good enough for a Washington legend, who is to say that Ms. Mitchell could not eventually come to a similar realization?

Secondly, check this cryptic comment by Nick Kristof, from his Oct 2003 column in which he described (with no mention of any sources at all!) Ms. Plame's CIA career:

Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington
as she rose in the CIA and moved to State Department cover, but her job
remained a closely held secret.

Isn't that pretty much what Ms. Mitchell said?

It [The fact that she worked for the CIA] was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence
community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who
among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number
of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her
actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role
involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

Let's see - Bob Woodward received a leak and kept quiet. Nick Kristof says Ms. Plame's intelligence connections were "known a bit", although her specific job was not. And Andrea Mitchell said that, among the presumably small group of reporters following the Niger story, her employment at the CIA was "widely known", although her actual role was not.

Those puzzle pieces fit quite nicely - why assume she was wrong, or lying, back then? Especially when her motive to lie be confused today is so clear.

I would think the press would be buzzing around this. The Woodward revelation was a front page story, so where would similar news about Andrea Mitchell end up?

And who is going to break it? One presumes, at this point, that Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell have chosen to bury this.

I bet she could! But it would be fun to watch her try. Meanwhile, Bernie McGuirk and Don Imus can torment her on a bi-weekly basis.

MORE: We will come back to Nick Kristof, but check his non-denial of prior knowledge of Valerie Plame's CIA connection:

I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her CIA career and hadn't
realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47,'' as a classmates at
the CIA training "farm,'' Jim Marcinkowski, recalls. I'll be more
careful around her, for she also turns out to be skilled in throwing
hand grenades and to have lived abroad and run covert operations in
some of the world's messier spots. (Mrs. Wilson was not a source for
this column or any other that I've written about the intelligence
community.)

Uh huh. Well, I know Nick Kristof is a Times columnist, but I don't know his "career" at the Times; maybe he knew Ms. Plame had a desk job at Langley, but did not know her career, either.

And telling us that "Ms. Wilson was not a source for
this column or any other that I've written about the intelligence
community" certainly does not exclude her prior use as a source on a column about, for example, Iran's nuclear aspirations.

Comments

Hi

We are working on a Grassroots Media Campaign for liberal issues and causes. We are putting pressure on the media to stop Republican propaganda, stop the war, stop torture, and stop the spin from corrupt politicans.

We would appreciate your posting this link, writing a letter, signing a petition... Please participate and feel free to pass this link around the left. It's time for our voices to rise together above the din.

As May points out in your link there are some good reasons for her memory to be getting hazy. What bothers me more than Mitchell is the news organizations themselves and the way they've been behaving. They do not appear to me to be interested in the real story here (whatever the real story might be).

The only ones interested in that appear to be bloggers like yourself and the curious few of us that ponder these things in the comments.

The Washington press is absolutely unreliable on this story, they're up to their make-up stained collars in this thing.

I'm all for actually getting Mitchell to clear up her role in and knowledge of all this. But May does not know whereof he speaks when he speaks of keeping quiet, though he may know whereof he speaks when it comes to lying a la Mitchell. May was very public very early with his own purported knowledge of Plame, and he was questioned in the investigation, so he was not following anything like Woodward's strategy. The interesting question is, what did he tell investigators and did it differ from what he told the rest of us? It would be nice if he would clear this up to, especially since he should be able to be fully up front about his source, since May's whole point was that he took it that the info about Plame was widely known and not any kind of secret and was shared casually. So he should be more forthcoming too.

It was [of course!] widely known among those of us [I mean: "anybody who is anybody!"] who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us [few, select, hip, in-the-know cutting edge creme de la creme of journalism reporters] began to pick up on that. But frankly [I must admit with both modesty and surprise, given how important and knowledgeable I am] I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction [which should surprise even you since I am so cool!]...

Isn't this a simpler explanation and Mitchell is just embarrassed now to admit that she was talking through her hat?

What is amazing is the fact that what propelled Mitchell into these denials was not the completion(?) of the indictments, but the "printing" of a transcript that establishes her previous statements that were discussed on the net for a long time, but had no actual source cited. This is where she began trying to dis blogs...when evidence came in. (she thought it had been dealt with, but the discussion on Capital Report, with CNBC, missed the transcript censors.)

Taranto comes out with a hard transcript of a show no-one watches/Capital Report on CNBC, Nov 1-Mitchell hits Imus Nov 10.
She said it somewhere else, in far more expansive terms, which included the term 'media-elite', and I believe she discussed attending functions where she 'met' Valerie. How often would Greenspan/Mitchell attend an embassy function which had Wilson and Plame?

I think she said more than just what Taranto found...I never watched the show that she said his quote on...but remember there was another quote I heard that made this all the more obvious-and I think it was on Hardball.

"NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell concedes that most of Washington's media elite already knew it."-I don't think Ed was referencing CNBC, there is another smoking gun tape of Mitchell out there...I also don't think Ed was making this up...there is another quote out there, of that I'm certain.

I think when russert came under fire, MSNBC cleaned up her previous appearances on their primetime shows, but missed the Capital Report.

Andrea GREENSPAN has such an obvious conflict of interest, that her mere employment as a News Person is a constant blotch on the veracity of NBC News. She should either dump the old fart or dump the old News Network. She has so many contacts that have to be scewed because of her ultra powerful husband, so many people afraid not to talk to her, so many more who hope she spills something about the Fed, and so many other news media outlets competing to get her "inside" opinion and spin it, that she is a thin coat of makeup on the decay ravaged face of MSM. Stick a fork in her, she's been done for years.

You and some of your commenters are making the some mistake you made with Russert's denials. You are using "Plame" and "Mrs Wilson interchangably. What Mrs. Mitchell wanted to say-but refrained because it would have revealed the weakness of NBC's and Russert's statements-- was that she knew Wilson's wife worked with the CIA but did not know her name was Plame. That was the focus of the investigation and according to Russert he was only asked if Libby mentioned Plame

"Plame" was never desired or sought after knowledge...the only desire was squaring Wilson being "behested" by Cheney vs. behest via some one else.

The juicy Cheney "behested" gave the story LEGS

"Plame" only becomes of interest after David Corn's ESP, not Novak.

Here is Mitchell clearing things up:

MITCHELL: Chris, I actually wanted to clear something up, because I was involved in that back then. And, in fact, one of the things that the administration, the Vice President's Office, was trying so desperately to clear up was that Dick Cheney, in his trips to the CIA, did not solicit Joe Wilson to go. There had been inaccurate reporting -- some of it came from Wilson's mouth himself -- that he was dispatched by the vice president. This was clearly the case, according to the Vice President's Office, where the vice president asked a lot of questions about the uranium in Niger. And as a result, he was tasked to go.

MATTHEWS: I acknowledge that that's their defense, but don't we know now the fact that the trip was, in fact, triggered. Of course Valerie Plame suggested her husband for the mission. But the mission was triggered by the inquiry by the vice president, and the vice president was denying that at that time, wasn't he?

MITCHELL: In fact, that's not the case. The trip was triggered by the vice president's inquiries on the part of NSC [National Security Council] and CIA officials who were eager to answer his questions.

MATTHEWS: Right.

MITCHELL: He did not necessarily know that any trip was even under way at the early stages of that trip.

MATTHEWS: Sure, but they --

MITCHELL: That's what they were trying to clear up. That's why they jumped up. And that was probably the original motivation.

I noticed that right after the Libby indictment, Cooper was giving interviews that indicated that he was still after Rove. There were also indications at that time that Fitzgerald continued to interview "editors and reporters".

My dismay is growing because it seems like the media is anxious to nail White House officals yet protect certain sources.

This is not pretty...I am increasingly worried that we may never find out the whole story because it is clear that Fitzgerald set a perjury trap for the designated bad guys in the MSM narrative of this case.

The MSM is working it full force. Matthews went after Rove hard today. He kept asking why Fitz had not already indicted him. Actually, it appears Fitz is determined to influence history and get his name in lights. After all, look at the difference in the way he is being treated versus Starr.

When you merit the full force of the MSM going after your hide and they are the witnesses....duck.

Actually, it appears Fitz is determined to influence history and get his name in lights.

What evidence do you have that Fitzgerald is behaving any differently from how he has in the past? I see none. He appears to be doing exactly what he has done repeatedly as a prosecutor. And do you seriously think that Fitzgerald takes his marching orders from Tweety? I find this whole paranoid line completely ludicrous. Yes, the media play a very significant role in the way in which the public perceives what is going on in politics, in this case as in many others. But Fitzgerald concerned about that? Huh? It seems like it's basically just that you don't like the direction that both the media's narratives are going and you also don't like the way Fitzgerald's investigation is going, from what little we know of that -- and they're both not going in a good direction for the Bush administration right now -- and so you just conflate them and make Fitzgerald subordinate to your dread MSM. Oh yeah, Fitzgerald doesn't appear to be following your preferred line of investigation: he's not gunning for the Wilsons, or whoever.

Jeff, don't you think Fitz has figured out what is going on? I'll bet he has, I'm just not sure it's the same goings on I've figured out. But I do see more and more reporters being exposed, and more people understanding that Joe Wilson lied.

And more people realizing that deposing Saddam was a good thing.
===============================================

Jeff, Fitzgerald does not necessarily have to be part of any conspiracy (a word you used, not I) to be not getting the whole story out. He may be defining his job very narrowly for philosophic or practical reasons. But when such odd fragments keep spilling out, it would be unusual for the people in general to not be a little curious. Even curiouser is that the press, the professionally curious people, seem not suspicious at all.

Most folks I've read here are quite content that Libby, or Rove, or anyone who has actually done anything wrong, be consequated appropriately. But over the last decade, we have seen the results of so many investigations look shabby and incompetent a few months after completion, that we quite naturally suspect that certain rocks are not being turned over.

We may guess wrongly what is under those rocks. But that is far ahead of the current MSM attitude of "gee, I think that rock is just too small to be hiding anything important."

Gabriel Gonzalez proposes that Mitchell was lied to puff herself up when she claimed to know Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. It's not a bad theory, but it does have some problems. First, if she were willing to lie just to make herself look cooler, she probably could have done a lot better with very little extra effort. For instance, instead of saying lots of other reporters in her situation had heard about Plame -- which doesn't really make her look like Andrea Mitchell, super-reporter -- she could have claimed to also have a secret source, just like Novak, but decided for the good of the nation not to reveal it. How cool would that be? Second, by saying other reporters knew about Plame, she risked having the reporters who supposedly knew, but didn't, question her about it. Third, and most significaltly, if she actually had no knowlege about Plame, why would she assume that Wilson's version wasn't true: that Plame's occupation was a deep, dark secret, and that knowing about it pre-Novak was equivalent to knowing the atomic bomb secrets in 1945? Would she really go that far out on the limb just to look good?

Gabriel Gonzalez proposes that Mitchell was lied to puff herself up . . . Please omit the was. I need to start triple proofreading my posts whenever I change the wording. Why is it that errors that are invisible when I use PREVIEW suddenly leap into view once I hit POST?

AVI - "consequated appropriately" is priceless, even though I have not seen the same contentedness among commenters here that the specific wrongdoers you mention be consequated appropriately. One thing the left and the right can mostly agree about is that members of the media have played a central, and mostly uncomplimentary, role in this whole mess, and they are not doing a good job of exposing that role for the public. But, first, that's neither here nor there with regard to Fitzgerald, who is clearly starting to be a target for the right wing attack machine -- and that's what the conflation of him and the media is about. Also, I think you mischaracterize the press' attitude. It has not been incuriosity, but rather complicity as members of the press fail to pursue each other as aggressively as they do others. I am and have been for a long time all for the relevant players who are members of the press to come forward and tell us straightforwardly about their roles in this matter. But again, that has nothing to do with Fitzgerald, who has shown great integrity throughout this process -- and this is one of the things that gives me confidence that this investigation is unlike some of the other political investigations of the last decade to which you refer.

Tomorrow's WashPost has a Plame story. Luskin WANTS Viveca to testify because he thinks it will help Rove. Luskin is personal friends with Viveca. He supposedly came to Fitz with information about these conversations prior to Libby's indictment -- this is what gave Fitz "pause." Fitz is interviewing Viveca at the urging of Rove.

Let's see: Viveca is personal friends with Luskin and Rove WANTS Viveca to testify. I await to see how the rightwingers will explain how this proves what a bad, bad person Fitz is.

It will be the press that vivisects Fitzgerald. It has already started the process and there is little need for anyone on the right to do anything but ponder whether he will be portrayed as Javert or Clouseau.

Personally, I'm certain that on a certain level he is an excellent prosecutor. Just not on this level.

What does anybody here think of the possibility that Mitchell may be making all these contradictory statements now, while she is not under oath, to muddy the water in the event she is supboena'd by Libby's counsel or Fitz?

What do you think of the possibility she is making these statements on the advice of NBC counsel?

I await to see how the rightwingers will explain how this proves what a bad, bad person Fitz is.

Likewise, I await the condemnations of TIME, Novak and the MSM from the rightwingers on account of the fact that Novak was covering the case even though she was friends with Rove's lawyer, who was evidently a major source for her reporting on the case.

And yeah, Fitzgerald only provided Woodward with every opportunity to throw a huge wrench into his case against Libby (which he appears not to have done). And now he's acting at the behest of Rove's lawyer to hold off on indicting Rove until he's spoken with Luskin's friend, the reporter for TIME he was feeding his spin to. But wait, Fitzgerald is in over his head, intones clarice.

Fitz came into this with a deep dislike for at least Miller. When he leaves he's going to have a list that's quite a bit longer.

I would have a bit of sympathy for him except for the fact that he could have made a declaration that no law had been broken as soon as he determined Novak's source and our gal Val's true status. Overplaying a weak hand does not inspire sympathy or admiration.

In terms of Viveca's testimony, I trust the Wash Post's account that Rove thinks it will help him. Of course, I believe Libby was telling Fitz that Russert would exonerate him, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Anyone seen any speculation that shows how Viveca's testimony could possibly help Rove?

Viveca, who started reporting on the Plame matter this summer, is personal friends with Rove's lawyer. Does this raise anyone's eyebrows?

Interesting that it is left up to the WaPo to tell us why the TIME reporter is testifying.

I think Fitz is wading through a minefield when it comes to the press. They are part of the story, but want desperately not to get involved in the legalities. I don't want him to be as deferential as they want him to be. It's a delicate balance for the guy that's supposed to be investigating, because he can get them bleating "Chilling Effect!" with just the slightest slip.

Who can really afford to make the NYTimes, WaPo, Time, and NBC mad at them? Only a very brave soul.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to why Luskin would wait until the last minute before alerting Fitzgerald to his friend Novak's ability to provide exculpatory testimony? Do we think he found out the substance of the pending indictment of his client, rushed back to his office, checked his records, and only then realized that his reporter friend could help get Rove off? Or is there perhaps something to this?

Viveca, who started reporting on the Plame matter this summer, is personal friends with Rove's lawyer. Does this raise anyone's eyebrows?

Raise eyebrows....sorta Like....Andrea Mitchell, the wife of the Fed Chairman who was also the recipient of the referral leak...or, or, ....Cooper's wife's is a Dem Operative...oh I know...the envoy joined and informed the Kerry Campaign BEFORE he started his civic duty campaign to Kristof and Pincus...those are just a few eyebrow raisers just of the top of my head.

I still don't get how Viveca helps Rove. How is a 2004 or 2005 conversation relevant? I like the part of the link Jeff provided which sarcastically speculates that Viveca will testify that Luskin told her Rove is totally innocent. Like, wow. ha

So, topsecretk9, I take it the answer for you is, "Yes, that is problematic," even though some of the other evidence you cite makes no sense as accusation, such as the fact that Mitchell is the wife of Greenspan, a well-known conservative and very good friend of Dick Cheney; or the well-known fact that Cooper's wife is a Democratic operative, despite which Cooper fought the subpoena from Fitzgerald on Rove starting before the 2004 election. So your answer is, "Yes, it's a problem that Novak was friends with one of the principal actors in the case, from whom she was getting substantial spin as part of her reporting"? Is that right?

Jeff
You can take whatever you want from that. my point is DC is incestuous, the whole town is a case study in conflict of interest and the "media" who make their living "reporting" on "conflicts of interests" are every bit as, if not more so, ethically challenged at their subjects.

So am I scandalized that a reporter happens to be a personal friend of an Attorney in this case? NO.

One I'd be SHOCKED if there weren't any other personal relationships we've never been told that we might find just as or more so vexing.

BTW this is what I said about Andrea

Andrea Mitchell, the wife of the Fed Chairman who was also the recipient of the referral leak

I saidPure speculation, but one way Viveca could help if something she said HURT Cooper ( in some way.)

and realize I could be on to something. Say V-Nov says a few things about/pertaining to Cooper. Luskin recognizes these things BUT you don't rat out Cooper if your client is not or until indictment is mentioned...THEN you pull out your V-Nov/Cooper card.

Well that is my experience with lawyers...they hold their cards close and only use them when they need them. In other-words, they are just as likely NOT to use things ever if it doesn't come to it.

If V-Nov says something that would contradict or implicate Cooper in some way...well Luskin is not going to through Cooper under the train unless he has to.

Yes, I do not see how much longer Fitz can ignore that common knowledge flaw in his case, Rick.
And TS--maybe it is something about Matt Cooper..Perhaps he told her BEFORE he called Rove or Libby that he knew Plame? Why wouldn't he? His wife is a key Clintonite and Wilson was a Clinton appointee.

If Fitz thinks--and he apparently does--that Plame's employment was a secret he is over his head. If he thinks that Wilson's attacks wouldn't inspire inquiries by others into his connections with the CIA he's over his head. If he hasn't by now figured out the Pincus and Corn and Kristoff knew about Plame before Libby did, he's over his head. If Fitz thinks one can trace this gossip to its source, he's over his head.

Man, topsecret, three lame arguments in three ever-so-brief paragraphs. I gotta get out of here.

Aren't they supposed to be secret? Isn't this all about "leaking"?

So all leaks are suddenly equal?

Reporters and Dems connections far exceed a friendly relationship between a independent lawyer and a reporter.

As stated, this is completely imprecise. The same could be said about reporters and Republicans' connections. But it is a nice effort to preserve your reality-proof views, and continue to evade the issue. Each time you're confronted with an instance of a problem, all you have to say is, But, but, but, there is, there just is, so much more between the Dems and the MSM.

I will say I bet Time Mag liked the relationship and pushed it to be exploited though, and not because they love Karl.

So what? I'm sure TIME was happy with it. Does that make it okay? But just to preserve yourself from reality, you get to insist that TIME really hated Karl all along and that's why they liked the relationship, right? So they could really really get him? Even though they passed on the opportunity in 2004 for explicitly political reasons -- so as not to interfere with the election? So they had what they knew was damaging, true information about Rove and withheld it so as not to do that damage during an election season. I'm sure they don't love Karl. But they sure helped him. And regardless, the point remains that it is a problem that they had Novak covering Luskin's case and in fact talking with Luskin evidently extensively. Why you can't just acknowledge that is beyond me, unless you are that sunk in partisanship.

Yes, he was the new kid on the block..and not one the WH would be particularly chatty with--as it was more likely than not that he was in the enemy camp.So, how does he get his foot in the door? By a ploy--pretending he's calling to find out about the President's welfare reform initiative..something the WH might be willing to discuss with him.

Same with Raw Story and the 22 indictments. The important thing is to admit mistakes. It is now a truism that we all(bloggers and MSM journalists and pundits) can't be expected to get everything right, but need to be much quicker with corrections. Easier said than done.

Jeff: And yeah, Fitzgerald only provided Woodward with every opportunity to throw a huge wrench into his case against Libby (which he appears not to have done). And now he's acting at the behest of Rove's lawyer to hold off on indicting Rove until he's spoken with Luskin's friend, the reporter for TIME he was feeding his spin to.

I'm not sure how Fitzgerld "provided Woodward with every opportunity to throw a huge wrench into his case against Libby." It's more like he had the information shoved in his face. Like it or not, he could hardly ignore it. Likewise, if Luskin really did provide Fitzgerald with compelling exculpatory evidence, Fitzgerald would have been foolhardy to go forward with the indictment without investigating further. The question is: is Fitzgerald's goal in investigating Luskin's revelations to determine if they're true, or to prove them false? My guess, based of Fizgerald past actions, is the latter.

Um Jeff, your selective outrage and sanctimonious BS is lame. Now your on the Times witch-hunt? Funny, I thought it was Rove's waiver that confused and prevented Cooper testimony.

Um I guess on some level there is a problem with --again an Independently hired Lawyer having an outside personal relationship with a reporter but can you find me all of Viveca's GLOWING reports of Rove and Luskin?

I see it something akin to this...

Wednesday, October 22, 2003; Page C03
Leaking Pleasantries

"Even before the president's budget director parked his motorcycle outside the front door, there was an only-in-Washington feel to the Sunday night sendoff of NBC News White House correspondent Campbell Brown, on her way to New York and "Today" show stardom.

At the buffet at Brown's home in Adams Morgan, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV waxed indignant about the perfidies of the senior administration officials who he believes leaked the identity of his CIA-agent wife, Valerie PlameWilson. Nearby stood various senior administration officials -- OMB Director Josh Bolten, White House assistant press secretary Adam Levine and Pentagon flack Kevin Kellems -- leaking nothing but social pleasantries to the assembled media and political types, including the New Republic's literary editor, Leon Wieseltier, GOP media man Russ Schriefer and the Boston Globe's Anne Kornblut, who arranged the party.

The buzz, though, focused on a shy and attractive blonde who sat nibbling finger sandwiches and discreetly introduced herself only as "Valerie." Fortunately for all concerned, the Wilsons departed moments before the arrival of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Iraq hawk extraordinaire."

How many time has Campbell interviewed Wilson?

Why you can't just acknowledge that is beyond me, unless you are that sunk in partisanship.

Jeff you are probably one of the more arrogant commenters I have come across. Unless your mouse has a mind of it's own, then I suggest you not go to Mac-Ranger or Strata if you don't like them...otherwise just pretend you are Thumper

"Who can really afford to make the NYTimes, WaPo, Time, and NBC mad at them? Only a very brave soul." MayBee, gently is how I would describe Fitz's handling.

Jeff, the reason I object so strongly to Fitz... a)he told a story at his press conference that could have been written by his witnesses b)unless he thinks he has been elected to some supreme unheard of office, he should either indict or get off the pot.

I don't see how he could possibly indict anyone for the reason he was appointed when a)we have a list of names a mile long that knew b)Wilson told people c)Plame associated with reporters.

If that woman was a covert agent and her life is in danger, she and her husband were certainly not concerned about it when they were having breakfast with Kristof.

So you tell me why Fitz is taking this length of time. He has a shotgun pointed at the WH and he is too busy to finish? He insured this will be headlines for another year when he bagged the DNC/CIA/MSM a big one. And he is still after it? Give me a break.

Even though they passed on the opportunity in 2004 for explicitly political reasons -- so as not to interfere with the election?

How many times are you going to spout this nonsense? It's at least twice in this thread alone.

Reporters refusing to give up their sources has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS.

Honestly, Jeff, you throw that around like it proves the MSM isn't biased towards the Dems. When it comes to protecting their sources, which is protecting their lifeline into stories, which is their damn jobs, Jeff, their jobs come FIRST.

Elections come second.

Sure, the staff at the NY Times groused because Judy was 'protecting' Libby. But no reporter who wants to work in this town would cavalierly give up any source for political (or even patriotic) reasons.

Jeff, in reply to my comment, "I'm not sure how Fitzgerld "provided Woodward with every opportunity to throw a huge wrench into his case against Libby.":

Look at the questions Woodward reported being asked by Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald asked for my impression about the context in which Mrs. Wilson was mentioned.

Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed Wilson's wife with any other government officials before Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003.

He asked if I had possibly planned to ask questions about what I had learned about Wilson's wife with any other government official.

Fitzgerald [asked] if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment.

Given that Woodward told Fitzgerald he'd talked with Libby, which of those questions could Fitzgerald not ask? To the limited extent he asked questions that might cause problems for his case against Libby, his hand was forced by Woodward and his source coming forward.

So Rove and Luskin want Viveca(what a great name) to testify. And MSM and certain parties here glory in the fact the 'Rove' is mentioned again.

The progress of this investigation has slowly revealed the journalists as conniving, Joe and his whole shtick to be phony, and little there there in terms of White House evildoing.

I don't think Fitz is in over his head, at least I sure hope not. As you point out Clarice, all those 'ifs' are areas in which MSM is failing to get out the truth. What makes you think Fitz reads or believes the propaganda from them?

I suspect he is proving to himself, beyond even unreasonable doubt, that there was no evil conspiracy in the White House. If he can do that, let no man tear his story asunder.

He is subtle. I'm sure he can smell chicanery, and the press has twisted and turned itself to a fare-thee-well. I'm not sure how the WH has acted toward him, but see little signs that they have tried to stymie him. And, of course, we know next to nothing about his knowledge of Yellow Cake, the CIA, and the madman, Joe.

``For _when_ are we `knowing something'? Do I know (now) (I am, as it were, _knowing_) that there is a green jar of pencils on the desk (though I am not now looking at it)? If I do know now, did I not know before I asked the question? I had not, before then, said that or thought it; but that is perhaps not relevant. If someone had asked me whether the jar was on the desk I could have said Yes without looking. So I did know. But what does it mean to say `I did know'? Of course no one will say that I _did not_ know (that I wasn't knowing). On the other hand, no one would have said of me, seeing me sitting at my desk with the green jar out of my range of vision, ``He knows that there is a green jar of pencils on the desk,'' nor would anyone say of me now, `He (you) knew there was a green jar ...' _apart from some special reason which makes that description of my `knowledge' relevant_ to something I did or said or am doing or am saying (e.g., I told someone that I never keep pencils on my desk ; I knew that Mrs. Greenjar was coming to tea and that she takes it as a personal affront if there is a green jar visible in the room ...)''

That is, knowing in actual life has a specific grammar that does not include ``He is now knowing'' and ``I have knowledge of.'' These are references rather to a _picture_ of knowing that is false, but attracts analytic philosophers and liars in about equal measure.

And double for everyone else. It's the media that's painting castles in the sky.

Here's another Plamegate irony. Is the investigation per Fitz precluding investigation per the media? That might be a nice excuse for them, but it's fundamentally a lie. Just why, I'm not sure.
==========================================

Let's take Woodward. Did he or his source not sit on his info for fear of involvement with Fitz. How about, absent Fitz, their info was irrelevant. I thing Wittgenstein and Heisenberg are having a very interesting conversation, and the wire is tapped.
===============================================

What is most likely true is, she and a few other people knew about Plame before the article ; she claimed it was common knowledge after the fact for its prestige value. ``I am as good as Novak,'' and letting people who didn't know it that she's better than them. ``Everybody who is anybody knew it, and we are a select group. And you didn't know it. I'm so superior that I can no longer even imagine that possibility, myself.''

Unfortunately she did not anticipate the problems of subpoena power and insane focussing on this unimportant event, so now she's in trouble.

' Oh please. Are you seriously trying to recruit Fitzgerald into the dread liberal-MSM-...conspiracy against the Bush administration? '

It's the incentives he's facing, Jeff.

He's the center of attention. Big name journalists were flattering him as an independent, scrupulously fair prosecutor who found himself confronting the center of a conspiracy to bring fascist, permanent, Bushitlerism to the U.S.A.

Only Sir Fitzgerald of the Chicago Round Table can slay the dragon. 'Too bad about Judy having to go to the slammer--1st Amendment and all that we hold sacred not withstanding, but then, she's not really one of US, after all.'

Now put yourself in Fitz's place. What's better, being the Gray Lady's Champion, or turned into a Ken Starr pinata if you look at the evidence and conclude that the Wilsons let several people know that Val was CIA--in order to establish their bona fides--and that this is just another garden variety Washington DC political brouhaha?

And yes, I'm very much into real-guy mixed metaphors, and whom Valerie Bond would never look twice at.

Something else I have noticed that keeps cropping up with the MSM. The same way they love Fitz, they all decided as a collective group, certain thing about Val. She is a lovely *SHY* blonde and she is always lurking in the background or sitting quietly in a corner(by herself?) nibbling food. She smiles.

Now why do I have trouble saying *SHY* and CIA in the same breath? Ditto for hooking up with Wilson. Anyone else notice what a nice, shy little woman, is our gal Val?

Big name journalists were flattering him as an independent, scrupulously fair prosecutor who found himself confronting the center of a conspiracy to bring fascist, permanent, Bushitlerism to the U.S.A.

Show me one big name journalist who characterizes the Bush administration, and hence Fitzgerald, that way.

Do you have any evidence from his past actions that Fitzgerald is not an independent, fair prosecutor? Not a rhetorical question, I'm happy to see it, I'm not aware of any.

kim - I'm not sure what you're saying, but I was trying to make a straightforward point: Cooper had evidence that Rove had lied to the American people and possibly to the President about his involvement in the Plame matter, and he didn't go public with it when he was first pressed by the prosecutor on the matter in the midst of election 2004; and TIME has since come forward and made clear that the desire not to play an active role in the election was a part of their calculations.

The information I've seen so far suggests Fitz is a hard-ass with his sights set on the administration selectively filtering evidence to fit the Wilson/victim story.

Fitzgerald's history has highlighted that he is a prosecutor of strength and courage who goes after bad guys (blind sheik, Chicago politicos) despite their power and prestige. However, the investigative skills to separate the guilty from the innocent are a different matter. Sometimes it is the "little guy" who is the bad guy, and the guys with power and prestige who are the victims. The only way that an investigator can tell is to actually investigate. Sure speaking truth to power is an incredible rush, but it helps to get to the truth first.

In fact, Jeff, you've stumbled over a keystone of the MSM problem. If they had information they thought could effect the election, why the HELL didn't they let the news trickle out from under their shuttered facades? And people still sit and stare dumbly at that crap?
==========================================